Print this post Print this post

The Poz

1,635 words

The term “poz” originated as a slang term for “positive,” as in “HIV positive.” There’s a POZ magazine, POZ Personals, and a PozMatch dating site. A California DMV allowed a man in Santa Clara to use “HIV POZ” as his license plate.

An article at the “Black Youth Project” has its author tell us how “The fact that [he is] HIV positive is a result of anti-Black state sanctioned violence.” He goes on to tell us how he “could never bring [himself] to have penetrative sex” with his white boyfriend—and how he is grateful now “to know that [he] was actually protecting [himself] the entire time. Not allowing his white (everything) to occupy any more space within [him].” Somehow, he concludes with this: “I am convinced that ‘safe sex’ is now and has always been for the white boy, who gets to decide whether he wants sex to be ‘safe’ or not, because something is always around to protect him.”

In the context of the Alt Right, “poz” thus became a derogatory term for degenerate aspects of modern society whose worst component is their inability to simply acknowledge that obviously bad things are bad—which in other words confusedly seem to think that pretending that bad things are somehow good is the way to make the world better. Contextually, someone who contracts HIV after one unlucky sexual encounter and then readily acknowledges that something horrible has happened, so that he now has to learn to make responsible choices, is not “pozzed” in the Alt-Right sense—whatever else he may be. The “pozzed” individual is the one whose response to contracting HIV is demonstrated by the lack of any serious mature self-reflection found in article titles like “Learning to love myself enough to f*ck raw while Black and HIV positive.”

Like that article, this one is about “the poz” in both of these senses of the word.

If you haven’t been made aware yet, a new bill in California (SB239) is reducing criminal penalties for willful transmission of HIV/AIDS, including in blood donation.

To be clear, people with HIV aren’t being allowed to donate blood (see Section 3, 1644.5 of the bill). However, the felony penalties for attempting to do so while knowingly carrying HIV have been removed.

Supporters of the move argue that this is justified because it was never a felony to attempt to donate blood while being infected by any of the other viruses that can prohibit a person from being allowed to donate their blood—such as West Nile virus, for example.

However, that comparison is absurd. And to explain why, I’m going to have to offer a few gruesome details about how difficult it actually is to catch HIV. Most people simply have no idea how these risks work—and the portrayal of all “poz-persons” as a baselessly stigmatized class of victims obscures some fairly important parts of the truth: HIV is not a disease that “targets” gay people, or blacks, or anyone else. It is a disease that “targets” only the most extreme forms of blatantly degenerate behavior. One way to put it is to say that at the vast majority of the time, HIV is a virus that judges by the content of its host’s character, and not by the color of his skin or the simple fact of his sexual orientation. If you understand what catching the disease actually entails, then it becomes little surprise that those who do so would think that the next natural step is to write articles online about “Learning to love [themselves] enough to f*ck raw” while carrying the disease and exposing others to it.

First of all, strictly speaking, HIV isn’t really a sexually transmitted disease. Yes, HIV is typically transmitted through sexual activity, and it is legitimate to refer to HIV as a “sexually transmitted disease” for this reason. But the virus itself doesn’t travel through mucous membranes, or otherwise through genital contact per se. Sexual contact per se actually doesn’t seem to carry any perceptible risk of transmitting HIV at all, except in special circumstances.

That’s because HIV is transmitted primarily through contact with blood. So usually, the only time transmission of HIV through oral sex is a risk is if the participant has mouth or gum problems causing open bleeding inside their mouth at the time.

This is why, of all standard sexual practices, the biggest risk for contracting HIV comes through anal sex—because this is the category of sex most likely to cause bleeding. Now, do you want to know what the risk for contracting HIV is if you have anal sex, without a condom, with someone who is HIV positive? Well, I’m going to tell you anyway. It’s estimated to be as low as 0.5% per act.

What does this mean? It means for every single person who catches HIV, there are 200 people having condom-free anal sex with HIV-infected people and getting by just fine. To put it a different way, it means if you were to have anal sex, without a condom, with someone who was infected with HIV, a whopping 100 times, you would still stand a coin flip’s chance of coming out disease-free. And every single time out of that 100 times you decided to simply use a condom when having anal sex with that HIV-infected individual—or simply not have anal sex in particular—your chances of coming out just fine would grow that much better than a coin flip.

Do people catch HIV “innocently”—while behaving normally with little reason to expect themselves to be at risk? Sure, it happens. Statistically, even the most improbable events are probably going to happen periodically, given enough time. But the disease is so difficult to catch that “unlucky” people are always going to be a minority. To put it crudely, you really have to be letting a whole hell of a lot of diseased people rip up your anal cavity without a condom to the point that you’re openly bleeding and washing a dick with your blood before your chance of catching HIV can ever get particularly high.

And that is why comparing “poz-persons” to someone who was just randomly bitten by the wrong mosquito is fucking ridiculous. In the vast, vast majority of cases, catching HIV means you’ve been extremely reckless in pursuit of short-term pleasure, with little or no concern for the long-term well-being of either yourself or your sex partners, most of whom are probably handling their lives in the same hopelessly short-sighted and reckless way. So if the virus disproportionately infects people from one demographic versus another, this is not because the virus is capable of “targeting” them, but because members of this demographic disproportionately act extremely recklessly in the pursuit of short-term pleasure with little or no concern for the long-term well-being of either themselves or their partners.

In late 2016, a man posted a fake account for his ex-partner on the gay app Grindr for the purposes of drawing unwanted attention towards him as petty revenge when their relationship ended. The profile highlighted the fact that he was there to pursue secret rape fantasies, and made a clear point to emphasize that he was HIV positive. Even though his profile stated his HIV-positive status up front very clearly (the ex-partner had mentioned it for malicious purposes in an attempt to slander him), the headlines tell us that over 1,000 men still showed up at his door wanting to play out rape fantasies. HIV is, again, such a difficult disease to catch that people engaging in extreme levels of degenerate behavior like this are going to be extremely disproportionately represented in the kinds of people who finally catch it.

With this picture in place, now, let me ask you: do you think someone who catches HIV is exactly as likely as someone who caught West Nile virus by getting accidentally bit by a single unlucky mosquito just once to try to donate blood in order to help people in good faith? Do you think the kind of person who shows up at the door of a random stranger who has just advertised their HIV-positive status to play out rape fantasies is no less likely to try to infect others maliciously than someone who just gotten once by a single infected mosquito by accident?

A 1978 study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women,” found that 28% of gay male respondents estimated that they had had 1,000 or more sexual partners in their lifetime. 43% estimated that they had had 500 or more partners. And 79% of these respondents reported that over half of their sexual partners were strangers whom they had had sex with only once. This is the real reason why “gay men have been disproportionately affected” and are “44 to 86 times more likely to be infected with HIV than their heterosexual counterparts,” as this paper from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services tells us, removing all agency from gay men themselves with the verbs conjugated in the past participle as has long been standard for reports of this kind.

To the extent that “homophobia” is present in the Alt Right, it is not because we believe gays are willfully choosing to follow a perversion from God’s plan for sexuality, or because we simply fear those who are different from us, or any other such ridiculous excuse of an explanation. It’s because we’ve broken through society’s poz far enough to be aware of the realities of these kinds of behaviors.

When a place like California implements greater criminal penalties for calling transgender people by the wrong pronoun than for knowingly attempting to spread HIV, we know we have a serious problem.

“The Poz” has become an even greater threat to a sane and decent human society than the actual poz.

Related

12 Comments

  1. Charles Laurence
    Posted October 23, 2017 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    I very much like Counter-Currents. For this article, there were comments where I felt like yelling, “Double-Heck YES!” Like, ya know, a million other websites.

    I would submit that an interactive members-based ability to add feedback and responses could increase the participation on Counter-Currents, and enlarge its current readership. Just like it does on HuffPo, Yahoo, and a zillion other places.

    With that said, I’d like to give a Double-Plus Good for some of the comments, in particular that of the former physician and for that guy who no longer recognizes his country as his own.

  2. Joe
    Posted October 21, 2017 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    “What does this mean? It means for every single person who catches HIV, there are 200 people having condom-free anal sex with HIV-infected people and getting by just fine. ”

    This whole modern world and culture is not only bizarre, but completely alien to me. I will admit that I am a man from a different century, figuratively speaking. I forewent having sex with anyone or anything before meeting my wife, to whom I am completely and utterly in love and dedicated. So, this scenario of having to have sex with literally hundreds of fellow sexual deviants to acquire this “bug” is laughable to me. I have no sympathy nor compassion for anyone who lives such a debauched and immoral lifestyle. I will not go so far as to say AIDS is God’s judgment upon them, but I will say with all assuredness that it is Nature’s punishment upon them.

  3. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted October 21, 2017 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    So high-risk groups are those with a high-risk life style, and a high-risk life style is mostly an expression of the combination of low IQ and low impulse-control. So why are we not talking about Blacks ?

  4. Chinese N Maiden
    Posted October 20, 2017 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    I already know that “sex education” is a scam to make people afraid of having kids. It is just anti-fertility scare propaganda. Especially Whites and East Asians – so the smart Northern Hemisphere peoples of the planet – are affected by this. Other humans are not the least affected by this intellectualised scare propaganda. I am not sure what the Jewish role has been in sex education, and I would like it if someone can provide me with more information about this, but I do already know Freud was pushing an oversexualised worldview that is racially harmful. I believe the anti-contraception stance of traditionalists is extremely reasonable. I reject all use of contraception, and I believe you should not abort babies but be responsible. This way White and Asian fertility will go up again. I hope it will not be too late until we realise this.

  5. E
    Posted October 20, 2017 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Great breakdown of a magical disease that just appeared in the 80s.

  6. dolph
    Posted October 20, 2017 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    I’m an internal medicine physician and confirm this is largely true.

    Although at the very beginning of the epidemic you could get HIV randomly, this diminished fairly quickly, and by the 1990s, knowledge of HIV spread, “safe sex” was encouraged, and antiretrovirals were developed. Many homosexuals actually became sort of conscientous about it. Which is not to excuse them, whatever one believes about homsexuality, but merely to point out that the more intelligent homosexuals actually began to change their behavior.

    The result? Predictably, the spread of HIV occurred amongst blacks. There are millions and millions of blacks who just can’t put two and two together. They don’t think about modifying their behavior, much less treating a disease once they have it. And we physicians swoop in to save every black from themselves, raising the healthcare cost structure for everyone. I once worked in a prison hospital; I would guess half of the black inmates either have hiv or hepatitis c, and the long term effects are terrible. Blacks in general don’t age well, they just don’t. Take my word for it, after treating thousands and thousands of patients I know this. Blacks have their time in the sun as young athletes, then they deteriorate relentlessly.

    Endlessly helping the worst blacks was one of, though not the only, reason why I have largely quit medicine and look back in anger and disgust at the waste.

    • Huntley Haverstock
      Posted October 20, 2017 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

      Indeed, one fact I failed to mention in the essay is that the lifelong cost of PrEP is almost $400,000. So to the extent that HIV is now supposedly less detrimental than it was before, it’s because we’re externalizing that economic cost onto society as a whole via insurance and other forms of subsidy.

    • A narco capitalist
      Posted October 23, 2017 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      “And we physicians swoop in to save every black from themselves, raising the healthcare cost structure for everyone.”

      Another case of the spic-nig cycle.

  7. Dov
    Posted October 20, 2017 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    “That’s because HIV is transmitted only through contact with blood.”

    This isn’t true. HIV can be transmitted via blood, semen, female genital tract secretions (vaginal/cervical), and breast milk.

    • Dov
      Posted October 20, 2017 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

      But I agree with the article as a whole. Sexual minorities often engage in sexual behavior that’s more promiscuous and risky than the norm.

      • Huntley Haverstock
        Posted October 20, 2017 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

        I edited the sentence with a couple of qualifiers to clarify my original intended meaning: “HIV is transmitted primarily through contact with blood…” I’m fairly certain this is at least the explanation for why anal sex is the highest risk category.

        • Dov
          Posted October 20, 2017 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

          It is, indeed, Huntley. Local tissue trauma, as you discussed.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
 
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance